study on food intended for sportspeople · agra ceas consulting john nganga dr dylan bradley dr...

Written by FCEC June – 2015

European Commission Directorate General for Health and Food Safety

Study on food intended for

Sportspeople

Annexes

Framework Contract for evaluation and evaluation related services - Lot 3: Food Chain

Submitted by:

FCEC Contact for this assignment:

Dr Dylan Bradley

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety

Directorate E — Food and feed safety, innovation Unit Directorate E.1 — Food information and composition, food waste

Contact: [email protected]

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

Study on food intended for

Sportspeople

Annexes

Framework Contract for evaluation and evaluation

related services - Lot 3: Food Chain

Prepared by Agra CEAS Consulting

Project Leader: Dr Dylan Bradley

CONTACT DETAILS

E-mail: [email protected]

Project Team

Agra CEAS Consulting

John Nganga

Dr Dylan Bradley

Dr Maria Christodoulou

Areté

Alberico Loi

Enrica Gentile

Mario Gentile

Serena Berisio

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety Food and feed safety, innovation

2016

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

ISBN 978-92-79-56815-2 doi: 10.2875/846312

© European Union, 2016

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

Study on foods intended for sportspeople: Annexes

Food chain evaluation Consortium Lot 3 (FCEC)

FCEC i

CONTENTS

1 CASE STUDY: FRANCE ............................................................................................ 4

1.1 Theme 1: current market for sportsfood ............................................................. 4

1.1.1 National rules (A13) ............................................................................4

1.1.2 Sportsfood products on the market ......................................................6

1.1.3 Operators ..............................................................................................8

1.1.4 Consumers, distribution and marketing .............................................12

1.2 Evolution of the market after 2016 ................................................................... 17

1.2.1 B1 general evolution ..........................................................................17

1.2.2 B4 impacts on competitiveness and operator costs ............................18

1.2.3 B5 Innovation .....................................................................................19

1.2.4 B6 SME consequences .......................................................................19

1.2.5 B7 Price ..............................................................................................20

1.2.6 B8 Consumer choice and behaviour; B9 consumer protection ..........20

1.2.7 B10 Regulatory ..................................................................................20

1.2.8 B11 Competent Authority ..................................................................21

2 CASE STUDY: GERMANY ........................................................................................ 23

2.1 Theme 1: current market for sportsfood ............................................................ 23

2.1.1 A13 National rules .............................................................................23

2.1.2 Sportsfood products on the market ....................................................25

2.1.3 Operators ............................................................................................27





2.2.3 B5 Innovation .....................................................................................37


2.2.5 B7 Price ..............................................................................................38


2.2.7 B10 Regulatory ..................................................................................38


3 CASE STUDY: ITALY .............................................................................................. 42


3.1.1 A13 National rules .............................................................................42


3.1.3 Operators ............................................................................................47





3.2.3 B5 Innovation .....................................................................................56


3.2.5 B7 Price ..............................................................................................56


3.2.7 B10 Regulatory ..................................................................................57


4 CASE STUDY: UK .................................................................................................. 59


4.1.1 National rules (A13) ..........................................................................59


4.1.3 Operators ............................................................................................63





4.2.3 B5 Innovation .....................................................................................72



4.2.6 B10 Regulatory ..................................................................................73


5 CASE STUDY: SPAIN .............................................................................................. 75


5.1.1 A13 National rules .............................................................................75


5.1.3 Operators ............................................................................................80





5.2.3 B5 Innovation .....................................................................................89


5.2.5 B7 Price ..............................................................................................89


5.2.7 B10 Regulatory ..................................................................................90


6 SURVEY: CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................... 91

6.1 Question 2 – Prevalence of FISP consumption .................................................... 91

6.2 Question 4 – Sport activity .............................................................................. 95

6.3 Question 5 – Practiced sports ........................................................................... 96

6.4 Question 6 – Consumption habits ..................................................................... 98

6.5 Question 7 – Reasons behind consumption ...................................................... 100

6.6 Question 8 – Retail channels .......................................................................... 103

6.7 Question 9 – Aspects influencing purchasing behaviours .................................... 105



FCEC iii

6.8 Question 10 – Information on labels ............................................................... 108

6.9 Question 11 – Information on labels (2) .......................................................... 110

6.10 Question 12 – Trust in claims ...................................................................... 112

6.11 Question 13 – Influence of claims in purchasing ............................................ 115

6.12 Question 14 – Foods other than FISP ........................................................... 118

6.13 Question 15 – Reasons behind consumption of foods other than FISP .............. 120

6.14 Question 16 – Expenditure ......................................................................... 121

6.15 Description of the population: Questions 17 – 25 .......................................... 123

6.16 Full consumer survey questionnaire ............................................................. 133

6.16.1 Part A – First screening ....................................................................133

6.16.2 Part B – Second screening ...............................................................135

6.16.3 Part C – Consumption circumstances/reasons .................................135

6.16.4 Part D –Reasons behind consumption/purchase ..............................136

6.16.5 Part E – Expenditure ........................................................................139

6.16.6 Part F – General/Socio-demographic ...............................................139

7 SURVEY: COMPETENT AUTHORITY SURVEY RESULTS............................................... 141

7.1 Introduction to survey and replies .................................................................. 141

7.2 National legislation in place ........................................................................... 141

7.2.1 MS with legislation ..........................................................................141

7.2.2 Nature of national legislation ...........................................................142

7.2.3 Impact of national legislation ...........................................................144

7.3 Soft rules .................................................................................................... 148

7.4 Products on the market ................................................................................. 149

7.4.1 Total number of products on the market ..........................................149

7.4.2 Notified products on the market ......................................................150

7.4.3 Products placed on the market as sportsfood in accordance with Directive 2009/39/EC which may not be suitable for sportspeople 150

7.5 Claims ........................................................................................................ 152

7.5.1 Change in practices after 2012 .........................................................152

7.5.2 Use of authorised health claims relevant for FISP products ............155

7.5.3 Use of unauthorised claims ..............................................................156

7.5.4 Use of generic statements ................................................................162

7.6 Post 2016 .................................................................................................... 163

7.6.1 Suitability of EU general food law for the regulation of FISP ........163

7.6.2 Post 2016 legal situation ..................................................................167

7.6.3 Impacts of post 2016 situation .........................................................168

1 CASE STUDY: FRANCE

1.1 Theme 1: current market for sportsfood

1.1.1 National rules (A13)

1.1.1.1 Legislation in place

A national order from 1977 (Arrêté du 20 juillet 1977 pris pour l’application du décret du 24

juillet 1975 sur les produits diététiques et de régime) regulates dietic products including

sportsfood in France. Chapter 3 – dietetic products for effort is the main section of relevance

for sportsfood. It covers:

Categories of sportsfood (Article 49); two categories are defined:

o Food products which are both balanced in terms of their protein, fat and carbohydrate

content and their provision of protective substances (category 1).

o Food products of which the composition is predominantly carbohydrates or fats but in

which there is a balance between the provision of calories and protective substances

(category 2).

Compositional requirements (Articles 50 and 51);

o Category 1: protein calorie provision of 13-17%; carbohydrate calorie provision of

50-60%; fat calorie provision of 27-33%; required amounts of vitamins B1, B6, C,

Calcium and magnesium.

o Category 2: Carbohydrate calorie provision of at least 60% and required amounts of

vitamin B1 or minimum fat calorie provision of 33% and required amounts of

vitamins B1 and B2.

Labelling requirements (Article 53 and 54)

o Sale denominations of “balanced for effort” (category 1) and “balanced for effort”

plus “balanced for provision of carbohydrates / fat” (category 2).

o Statement of the purpose of the product and the intended use.

There are other chapters of the 1977 order which could be of interest for FISP (e.g. chapter 2:

"slimming products intended for diets with a certain protein requirement”). However, these

chapters, while potentially interesting for FISP products, are not specifically intended for

sportsfood products and no evidence was uncovered to suggest that they were widely used by

such products.

A non-obligatory anti-doping standard was introduced in France in 2012 by AFNOR.

It was noted that other national legislation not directly relating to FISP may be of relevance;

most notably that maximum levels for vitamins and minerals, and also for caffeine have been

adopted in France. Caffeine in conjunction with synephrine is not permitted in France.

1.1.1.2 Legislative methods of placing products on the market

While the 1977 order does exist, several interviewees indicated that the categories and criteria

are not strictly enforced at present as the order is considered too old. The 1977 order has not

been updated as the authorities have been waiting to see what is decided at EU level before

taking a decision on national legislation. Interviewees reported that, following the

development of the SCF categories in 2001, operators were informally told by authorities that



FCEC 5

as long as the product conforms to the description and criteria of one of the SCF categories

the product could be placed on the market as sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC.

That said, evidence suggests that products which are high in carbohydrates (including

carbohydrate electrolyte drinks, which interviewees confirmed generally conform to the

definition of category 2 sportsfood products) generally try to respect the carbohydrate and

vitamin B composition criteria and are placed on the market under this categorisation.

It was noted that there are other ways of placing food intended for sportspeople (FISP) on the

market in France, notably:

As food supplements.

As fortified foods or other foods for normal consumption.

Interviewees were divided on the extent to which FISP are placed on the market using these

methods. Some interviewees believed it was rare (indeed only likely for certain products

which are very close to food supplements in nature). However, other interviewees believed

FISP were commonly placed on the market under other legislative frameworks due to the

categories in French legislation or the nature of the product which may represent a food

supplement. Most notably, food supplements legislation was identified as a way of placing

powdered products in small packages (e.g. 30g protein supplements) on the market, and an

interesting way for the placing of the market of more innovative ingredients (e.g. creatine)

which do not fit with the categories in the national 1977 order. Fortified foods were identified

as a possible way of placing larger volume powdered products (e.g. 500g) on the market.

On balance, evidence suggests that FISP are placed on the market as food supplements to an

extent, but less commonly as normal or fortified foods. In the case that a product is placed on

the market as a food supplement, it is necessary to notify the Competent Authority1. Fortified

foods which comply with the Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 do not need to be notified; other

fortified foods do2.

1.1.1.3 Impacts of national legislation

Some interviewees felt that French legislation created no burden for operators at present due

to the absence of a notification procedure for products placed on the market as sportsfoods

according to Directive 2009/39/EC, and due to the more flexible approach which has been

taken with the national legislation. Indeed, some interviewees saw the national legislation as

a positive factor for operators as the legislation and better controls may be perceived to have

a positive impact on the image of FISP produced in France. However, there was one

1 If the product conforms to food supplements legislation, then it is just necessary to send an email/letter with a

label of the product to DGCCRF. If the product contains an ingredient that has not been authorised, it is

necessary to send a notification request which include: proof that the product is in accordance with national

provisions and on the market in another MS as well as information on ingredients. The CA then has 2

months to refuse the product. The French authorities are in the process of preparing an electronic version of

the notification process.

2 It was clarified that there are very few notified fortified foods, and that these are predominantly energy drinks

with caffeine or taurine.

interviewee who believed that the current situation created legal uncertainty for operators due

to the various possible ways of placing products on the market and lack of clarity around

them. This interviewee noted that, in the absence of clarity and in order to assure a certain

level of security, operators may choose to notify FISP as food supplements.

As previously noted, fortification of carbohydrate rich products with vitamin B1 is

widespread due to the composition requirements in national legislation. However, this was

not considered to be an issue by operators.

While national labelling provisions go beyond the provisions of Directive 2009/39/EC

(notably the use of specific sale denominations), on balance they do not result in labelling

significantly different from that permitted under Directive 2009/39/EC to have a significant

impact on consumer protection or information.

No other impacts of national legislation were identified by interviewees.

1.1.2 Sportsfood products on the market

1.1.2.1 A1 Products on the market

Number of products

No single source of the number of FISP products on the French market was identified, and

counting the number of products faces the same challenges as highlighted in the main report.

Evidence suggests that there are probably in excess of 3000 FISP products. This is based on

the following:

In 2012, according to information provided by interviewees over 50 brands of FISP products

were identified on the French market. While the number of products per brand varies

significantly, discussions with operators suggested an average number of around 30-50

products per brand.

According to one interviewee, annual innovation is considered to represent around 5% of the

French market3. Over the period 2012-2014 there was an average of 223 new FISP products

launched per year according to information from interviewees based on data from the Innova

database.

There is no meaningful way of estimating the number of products by category; however,

information on the importance of each category in terms of value based on Euromonitor data

is in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1: Importance of main categories of FISP in France

Category 2014 Value EUR m % of total Forecast annual

growth rate

2013-18

Protein products 70.3m 55% 2.3%

3 This figure is slightly below the EU level range provided by interviewees of 8-12%.



FCEC 7

Performance boosting

products

34.7m 27% 2.1%

Sportsdrinks 22.6m 18% 2.1%

Total 127.6m 2.2% nutrition

only

Source: Euromonitor

Most common sub-categories, formats and varieties

Interviewees were not able to provide quantitative data on the sub-categories under each

category. However, qualitative comments were provided as follows:

Protein: evidence suggests the powder format to be the most important, followed by bars and

RTD; there are also a small number of gels, cakes or crisps. While pure protein remains most

popular, there are an increasing number of products which combine protein and

carbohydrates for recovery.

Performance boosting products: energy bars are the most important sub-category, followed

by energy gels and concentrates. Supplement style products make up the remainder of the

category. The gel and concentrate sector, however is more innovative than the bars sector.

Sportsdrinks: the sector is less developed than in many other Member States. In terms of

format, powder is comparatively more popular in France than in other Member States. The

reason cited for this was portability.

Across all categories it was noted that low concentrate / natural versions of some products

have been launched in recent years to target more wellness orientated consumers.

1.1.2.2 A2 Ingredients

Protein: the most common ingredients of protein products are different types of protein,

namely:

Whey

Casein

Egg protein

Soya protein

The levels of protein tend to be very high; typically 80% or more of product composition. As

noted above, there is an increasing trend towards the inclusion of carbohydrates with protein

in some products in this category for the function of recovery. Some products may also

contain vitamins to assist with the metabolism of protein; single amino acids; or caffeine to

aid recovery.

Performance boosting products: for energy bars and gels, the most common ingredients

are:

Carbohydrates

Vitamin B1

It should be noted that, due to French legislation, most energy bars and gels contain both

these ingredients. Other vitamins may be added in some cases.

In terms of supplement style products, the following were identified.

Creatine and other stimulants.

Individual amino acids, vegetable extracts or specific nutrients with an impact on the nervous

system.

Sportsdrinks: sportsdrinks contain the traditional carbohydrate-electrolyte combination. As

with energy bars and gels, due to French legislation products in this category are generally

fortified with vitamin B1.

1.1.2.3 A3 Price

No price data was identified at national level or provided by interviewees. However,

Euromonitor contains price data for certain major brands in France. Prices for products

considered representative of each category are provided in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Price of FISP products in France (2014, EUR)

Category Average size Average price Price per unit

Protein – powders 925g 38.28 EUR 4.14EUR / 100g

Performance

boosting – gels

86g 6.05 EUR 1.75 / 25g

Sportsdrinks 625ml 1.65 EUR 0.26EUR / 100ml

Source: FCEC based on Euromonitor; average of 5 randomly selected

1.1.3 Operators

1.1.3.1 A6 Market structure

Value of the market

According to national French industry estimates, the market for sports nutrition and drinks

was worth approximately 75m EUR in 2014. It was noted that there is no panel data on

internet and sport shop sales; hence this figure is an industry estimate. Data from

Euromonitor puts the market at EUR 127.6m in 2014, suggesting the industry estimate may

be slightly on the low side.

According to national French industry estimates, the market has grown at a compound annual

growth rate (CAGR) of 3.5% since around 2005; Euromonitor data suggest growth over the

last year of 5% for sports nutrition products and 1.3% for sportsdrinks. The key driving factor

identified for this increase in sporting activity in France (an estimated 2/3 of the population



FCEC 9

completed regular sporting activity of some kind4 in 2010), with three key factors

contributing to this:

Development of sport infrastructure.

Increase in the number of sports clubs.

Propagation of the number of gyms and fitness centres (a six-fold increase in 6 years).

This has led to the emergence of certain consumer groups (more details in section 1.1.4.5). It

was noted that some evidence suggests that the French are, on average, more active then the

EU average.

The main threats to the industry are considered to be connected to the broader economic

situation in France (purchasing power and the economic climate). An absence of consumer

belief of product claims and consumer understanding of products are other possible threats.

Structure of the chain and characteristics of operators

There are approximately 50 major brands of FISP products in France. The major operators in

the sector, including the three largest operators, are French. That said there are some

operators on the market that are based in other Member States such as Germany, the UK and

Poland. There are some US operators (see section 1.1.3.3).

As is the case for the wider EU sportsfood market, the chain can be broken down into

manufacture, branding and retail. An overview is provided in Table 1.3.

4 In addition to the fitness work-outs and the normal individual and team sports, this included activities and

sports such as: walking, horse riding, dance, petanque and table tennis.

Table 1.3: Overview of types of operators present on the French market

Company

background

Comments Common roles Examples

Dietetic / food

supplement specialist

Uses knowhow from

these sectors to enter

sports nutrition

Sub-contracted

manufacture

Branding

Manufacture and

branding

Nutrition et

Sante,

Nutribio

Sports nutrition

specialist

Only produces sports

nutrition products

Manufacture,

branding and retail

Overstim.s

(Diete Sport)

Specialist producer

and distributor of

sports goods

Uses distribution

network

Branding and retail Decathlon

Source: FCEC based on interviewees and desk research

The size of operators varies. From a sample of 8 companies met during the case study, 4

(50%) classed themselves as SMEs. The majority of the companies considering themselves

SMEs were sub-contracted manufacturers, though there was also one operator covering from

manufacture to retail. From the same sample of operators, all eight operators reported that

they sell products both inside France and on other EU markets. Some of these operators;

performing both sub-contracted manufacture and branding; noted that their clients (either

brands or retailers) required that their products be sellable in multiple Member States.

Table 1.4 shows the latest available concentration ratios for sports nutrition operators. The

sports nutrition industry shows a high level of concentration. The third column displays the

concentration ratio from 2009.

Table 1.4: Concentration ratio of branded sports nutrition operators in France (2013)

Concentration ratio (CR) Combined market share

2013

Combined market share

2009

CR-4 66.2% 65.0%

CR-8 84.6% 80.3%

Source: FCEC based on Euromonitor

Data enabling the calculation of CR-4 and CR-8 ratios for the importance of sportsdrinks

operators has thus far, not been identified. However, estimation of the importance of the main

three brands is provided in Table 1.5. Together they account for an estimated 88% of the

market (i.e. CR-3 = 88%).

Table 1.5: Main brands of sportsdrinks in France

Brand Estimated % of total sportsdrinks market

(2013)

Isostar (Nutrition et Sante) 34%



FCEC 11

Gatorade (PepsiCo) 33%

Powerade (Coca Cola) 21%


1.1.3.2 A10 Innovation

The main drivers of innovation were noted as:

Consumption format; this was noted as a particular driver for carbohydrate based products, with

the emergence of many gels and bars. It was also noted that sachets have played a significant role

in terms of innovation for sportsdrinks in France.

Taste and flavours; innovations in this area increase consumer acceptability and can help attract

lifestyle users and occasional sportspeople to products. Lower concentrated / more natural

versions have been a recent driver for launches of some products.

Quality and effectiveness of products; most notably, improvement in manufacturing techniques

(filtering and purification of proteins in particular) have been a major driver in the protein

category.

New sports / increased popularity of certain sports; new products will be designed to address

the needs of these new or increasingly popular sports.

Increased sporting activity among the French population; see section 1.1.3.1.

In recent years, there have been several new entrants into the market. They tend to position

themselves quite specifically in terms of their products and/or target consumer (e.g.

specialisation in nutrition for a certain sport).

Table 1.6 shows the number of new FISP products launched in France for the period 2012-

14. As can be seen in the table, the majority of new product launches related to powder

products.

Table 1.6: New FISP products launches in France, 2012-2014

Year Powders Supplements Bars Drinks

RTD

Protein

RTD

Others

inc gels

Total

2012 16 16 18 7 1 20 78

2013 138 52 9 4 3 19 225

2014 213 59 44 18 9 44 367

Source: Innova, provided by interviewees

1.1.3.3 A8 Trade

No precise data on trade was identified. However, according to interviewees there is

considerable import from the US. While the largest producers in terms of market share are

French, a significant number of producers by number are American; roughly half of the 30

largest brands in France are from the US. No other third country is present among the largest

brands.

While historically these American products have been imported directly rather than

manufactured in France, interviewees suggested that recently there has been increasing

interest in using French-based subcontractors to manufacture the products in France. There

are also some large import "platforms"; these introduce US FISP products into the EU

through a single EU-based operator in one Member State (e.g. Netherlands) who

subsequently sells these products to traders in different Member States for onward sale to

distribution outlets. It was noted that this method of import may have some issues as the local

(French based) traders may receive the products with labelling in English and for which the

composition is not known. The products may therefore not be considered fully in compliance

with EU law; however these products also are difficult for Competent Authorities to take

action against. While the operator introducing the product into the EU through the import

platform should know the composition of the product imported, in reality it would appear this

is not always the case. Finally, some interviewees felt that products from third countries and

Member States that do not comply with French provisions can be found on the French

market.

While there are some exports to third countries, evidence suggests that these are not

particularly significant, at least at present. It was however noted that in some neighbouring

dietetic areas such as infant formulae, exports from France to Asia have been high in recent

years as trust in local production is low and manufacture in the EU is seen to provide a seal of

guarantee.

1.1.4 Consumers, distribution and marketing

1.1.4.1 A7 Distribution channels

The main distribution channels identified in France along with their importance and

characteristics are presented in Table 1.7.

Table 1.7: Main distribution channels in France

Channel Comments Importance

Specialised large

sports shops (e.g.

Decathlon)

A natural connection between sport

and nutrition products. Well

positioned for members of the general

public performing sports activity.

Interviewees: most

important channel by

volume; 75% of sales

CS: 26% of respondents

Online sales Two sub-channels:

Direct from manufacturer (of

which level of usage and

importance varies by operator).

Specialist on-line.

Can facilitate direct contact with

customers. Used by most major

brands to some extent.

Interviewees: 2nd most


volume; probably in

excess of 15% and

growing.


Pharmacies and

parapharmacies

Pharmacies are restricted as to which

products they can sell in France.

Dietetic products are among them.

May be seen as more trustworthy by

Interviewees: 3rd most


volume



FCEC 13

certain consumers. CS: 9% of respondents

Multiple retailers

(e.g. Carrefour)

Only targeted by certain brands.

Traditionally in France a product

cannot be sold in both pharmacies

and multiple retailers (though this is

changing).

Interviewees: Least

important channel,

Figure 1-1: distribution channels in France by product type according to consumer

survey

Source: consumer survey

An additional channel of “grey” internet sales; that is to say direct sales of products from

third countries which do not comply with French legislation was identified.

1.1.4.2 A11 Marketing techniques

Sponsoring of sports events and/or endorsement by certain famous sportsdrinks or clubs are

important for some brands. Larger brands in particular were reported to use endorsement or

sponsoring, while brands of all sizes may sponsor events of different types. Communication

through specialised press was reported as a common marketing technique. Only one case of

the use of mainstream media for advertising was identified during discussions with operators

met during the course of the study; the most likely reason for this is the prohibitive cost of

this advertising channel. Point of sale sampling was identified as a marketing tool used by

some operators.

Certain interviewees noted that communication on FISP products through more informal

channels; internet forums and word of mouth; was widespread. The nature of such

communication makes it difficult (if not impossible) to control.

In the particular case of sportsdrinks, dedicated, branded fridges of these products were

reported to be found in certain mainstream outlets such as grocery stores or sandwich shops.

Certain producers may indicate the respect of certain anti-doping norms such as that from the

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) on their packaging. This may be done for

reasons of marketing. The anti-doping norms may have had a positive impact on the

credibility of some products.

1.1.4.3 A5 Claims

As noted in section 1.1.1.1, there are certain labelling criteria in the national legislation which

provide the opportunity for an indication of the denomination of sale and a statement of



FCEC 15

purpose and intended use. Example indications identified by interviewees include (translated

from the French):

Sportsfood

Sportsdrink / drink for sport / isotonic sportsdrink / recovery drink

Sports bar

Gel energy / power gel

Endurance / effort / performance

Designed for endurance sport

Weight gain

Interviewees did not agree on the extent to which these indications were restricted to only

products complying with the compositional criteria of the 1977 order. While one interviewee

believed that only products fulfilling these criteria used these indications, other interviewees

suggested that these indications may also be found on other products adhering to the SCF

categories (see 1.1.1.2).

FISP products placed on the market as food supplements bear the indication “food

supplement product based on substance X”

In terms of the use of health claims authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the

examination of product labels provided by operators in the context of the case study

interviews and an examination of products for sale on the market showed that the claims for

carbohydrate electrolyte drinks and protein can be found on products fulfilling the claim

conditions. Furthermore, claims relating to certain vitamins and minerals (for example

vitamins B1, B2, PP and B6 for energy metabolism; vitaminsB2, PP, C and B6 for fatigue

reduction) could also be found.

Operators (including sub-contracted manufacturers) interviewed in the course of the case

study had varying perceptions about the extent to which FISP products were reformulated

following the entry into force of the list of claims in order to use certain authorised claims.

Half of the operators interviewed that were active in 2012 reported that reformulation had

taken place to a moderate extent, while the other half reported that there was no

reformulation. In summary, the extent to which reformulation took place varied from operator

to operator (and in the case of sub-contracted manufacturers, from client to client). This was

also confirmed as the likely case by certain interviewees.

1.1.4.4 A4 Foods not intended for sportspeople

With the exception of some energy drinks, foods other than FISP have not targeted

sportspeople in France. It was noted that certain products such as pasta and cereal bars may

be used by sportspeople due to the energy they can provide.

Evidence from the survey of consumers suggested that 87% of sportspeople use foods other

than FISP in relation to sporting activity. The most common of these are fruit and vegetables

(52%) followed by soft drinks (40%) (see Figure 1-2).

Figure 1-2: Use of foods other than FISP in relation to sports activity by sportspeople


1.1.4.5 Consumers

According to interviewees, the main groups of consumers in France are:

Sportspeople:

o Body builders aiming for muscle mass growth.

o Athletes (professional or semi professional), looking for products to improve their

performance or endurance.

o Occasional sports users who are primarily interested in improving their physical

condition and appearance.

Lifestyle users:

o Wellness consumers who are very attentive to their lifestyle and use sports nutrition

products as a method of healthy nutrition.

A certain amount of this sporting activity is accounted for by consumers who want to improve their

appearance. This group of consumers makes a particularly interesting target group for manufacturers.

Occasional sport participants and wellness motivated users are an interesting target groups, and

certain versions of products may target these consumers (see above).

However, there was a belief from one interviewee that certain products such as sportsdrinks were now

being widely consumed by the general public. This was perceived to be dangerous to public health as

the contents of such products (e.g. high levels of sugar), though suitable for sportspeople, are in

opposition with the nutritional needs of the general public. The younger generation, including

teenagers, were seen as been more likely to consume such products outside the context of sporting

activity, and hence particularly at risk to health issues such as obesity which can result from the

excessive consumption of nutrients such as sugar that are found in these products.

37% 40%

36%

15%

52%

25%

3%

13%

France



FCEC 17

Figure 1-3 displays consumption habits of FISP consumers by product category according to

the consumer survey. Results show that, in all cases, consumers who use products neither in

relation with sport or physical activity are a minority.

Figure 1-3: consumption habits of FISP consumers in France by product category


1.2 Evolution of the market after 2016

1.2.1 B1 general evolution

In the case that no legislation is adopted at EU level, it is most likely that new national

legislation will be introduced in France (source: CA survey). The basis for this is that it is

believed the main aims of ensuring food safety and consumer protection can be best fulfilled

through specific legislation, and the 1977 order currently in force is outdated. The majority of

interviewees were potentially in favour of national legislation in such a situation, though one

interviewee was against it.

Any regulation would need to be thoroughly discussed between various ministries; finance

and fraud (DGCCRF), health, sport and agriculture; as well as potentially stakeholders;

before the scope could be decided. However, it is likely that legislation would cover the

following areas:

Labelling;

categorisation (possibly: (1) carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks and carbohydrate based products;

and (2) protein; though expert input would be required prior to the development of any

categorisation), and;

compositional criteria.

It is possible that a notification procedure could be introduced for certain products which do

not adhere to the categorisation or criteria for sportsfood adopted in any future legislation,

62%71% 63% 55% 54%

17%9%

15% 26% 24%

21% 21% 23% 19% 22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total products Sport drinks Sport energy bars Protein-basedproducts

Performanceboosting products

France

Sport activity Physical effort other than sport Neither sport nor physical effort

while those which adhere to the criteria or categorisation could potentially circumvent this

obligation (as is currently the case in France for fortified foods).

It was noted that a major challenge with any definition of sportsfood in legislation is that it is

sufficiently precise to avoid problems at the borderlines of the category. A definition would

have to define both what is considered sportsfood and what is not. In the particular case of

France, given that some FISP products are placed on the market as food supplements at

present, it would probably be necessary to perform a one-off sorting of the products on the

market. The choice of how to place a product on the market; as sportsfood under specific

legislation or supplement; would belong to operators, as long as the relevant rules are

respected. If the relevant rules were not respected, products would probably not be accepted

in the category (as is the case at present with certain products placed on the market by

operators as food supplement but which are not accepted as such by the competent authority).

Certain interviewees noted that, with potentially different legislation in different MS, a plan

for mutual recognition would be needed.

1.2.2 B4 impacts on competitiveness and operator costs

1.2.2.1 Assuming national legislation is introduced

The majority of interviewees saw positive impacts for operators from the impact of national

legislation; more specifically:

it would allow FISP products to benefit from a special status which would separate products

falling under the legislation from other products on the market;

it would provide clarity in terms of the method of placing on the market (as noted above this

is not the case at present as there are several different ways of placing products on the

market), and;

as long as any compositional criteria set out in national law are not too strict, there would be

no adverse impact on formulation.

The main negative impact perceived was the potential for a patchwork of different legislation

across EU Member States, which would in turn result in operators having to comply with

various different labelling and compositional requirements. Given that many French-based

operators are active in more than one Member State (see section 1.1.3.1), it was considered

likely that there would be significant impacts from this internal market distortion.

1.2.2.2 If no national legislation were to be introduced

In the absence of national legislation (i.e. in the case that FISP were to fall under other

horizontal rules of food law, the following issues for operators were identified at national

level:

There would be underhand competition in the area of FISP from other operators advertising

products as being intended for sportspeople. The basis for this affirmation was article 2 (2) of

Directive 2009/39/EC which prohibits the labelling of foodstuffs for normal consumption5

from being presented as if they were dietetic foods. A certain stakeholder also commented

5 As specified in the directive.



FCEC 19

that, at present general food products will not use the indication “product for sportspeople”

through the use of article 10 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on health claims due to the

existence of article 2 (2) in Directive 2009/39/EC.

A consequential reduction in quality of some products; for example, in the case of protein

based products, the ability to use the authorised health claims for protein and muscle mass at

thresholds of 12% of product energy value would result in products on the market targeting

sportspeople with levels of protein significantly lower than those found in dedicated FISP

products at present.

Potential difficulties for operators to submit sports nutrition products dossiers for the

authorisation of new health claims.

On balance, evidence suggests that the majority of operators have not yet made any

adjustments to their products in view of the expected repeal of PARNUTS legislation and

removal of the category of sportsfood. However, one interviewee reported that some

operators may have changed the position of their products in view of the expected change of

the legal position of FISP at EU level.

1.2.3 B5 Innovation

It was noted by certain interviewees that, while categories in legislation would be useful for

defining products, if too restrictive they would limit innovation as products do not always fall

into neat categories.

Future uncertainty was identified as a factor with significant impacts on innovation. It was

noted that, the current situation, which remains unclear in France (both due to uncertainty as

to what action will eventually be taken at EU level, and uncertainty about the precise nature

of any provisions at French level) has negative impacts on innovation, and will continue to

have negative impacts until there is certainty. According to one operator interviewed in the

context of the study, a minimum of 1 year is required to bring a new product to market

(potentially longer if the product is more complex in composition) and consequently

innovation was challenging at present given the uncertain outlook which could not guarantee

returns on investment.

1.2.4 B6 SME consequences

Certain interviewees believed that national legislation would benefit interviewees in the sense

that it would provide legal clarity. In the case that a notification system is only imposed for

sportsfood products which do not comply with legislative requirements, and not for all

sportsfood products (see section 1.2.1), there is unlikely to be a significant burden on SMEs

from notification. Indeed some SMEs may already be placing FISP products on the market as

food supplements, and hence notifying the competent authority of their products, and the

burden of this notification process was perceived to be minimal.

Similarly, if reformulation is not widespread due to any new national rules (also see section

1.2.1), there would be no consequent adverse burden for SMEs.

1.2.5 B7 Price

None of the interviewed stakeholders felt to be in a position to make considerations on

potential impacts on the price of products stemming from the introduction of national

legislation.

1.2.6 B8 Consumer choice and behaviour; B9 consumer protection

Various interviewees noted that any national regulation would be introduced on the basis of

consumer protection, and subsequently would be expected to have positive impacts in this

respect. As already mentioned (section 1.2.1), as long as composition criteria are not too strict

there would not be widespread there would not be widespread reformulation or withdrawal.

Subsequently, consumer choice should not be adversely affected.

However, one interviewee noted that the first aim of any legislation should be the protection

of general consumers, and not specifically of consumers of FISP given the high level of

nutrients which can be found in certain FISP products and their negative effects on health if

not consumed in the context of sporting activity. This interviewee believed consumer

protection would only be significantly enhanced if national legislation contained tight

controls on the substances authorised in FISP, and the sale of such products were restricted to

certain outlets which specifically target sportspeople.

Clarity with regards to the legal position of products; whether due national legislation or due

to FISP falling under other horizontal rules of food law; was expected also to provide clarity

with regards to the products for consumers.

One interviewee noted that, due to French national law, the repeal of PARNUTS could result

in the inability of pharmacies to sell FISP products6. It is not clear whether any new national

legislation would lift such a restriction, either directly or indirectly through the introduction

of national legislation on sportsfood.

In the case that no national legislation were eventually to be adapted and FISP were to fall

under other horizontal rules of food law, certain interviewees foresaw negative impacts on

consumer protection stemming from the changes in product ranges and labelling indications

cited in section 1.2.2.2 and the perceived deficiencies of other horizontal rules of food law

identified in section 1.2.7.

1.2.7 B10 Regulatory

The intention of the competent authority to introduce national legislation, along with the

support of certain parts of the industry indicates a feeling that other horizontal rules of food

law, as they stand at present, are not suitable for the regulation of FISP in France. Particular

insufficiencies identified include:

The inability to sell high sodium and high carbohydrate products with suitable labelling

indications.

6 The sale of foods for general consumption is not permitted in pharmacies in France (with certain specific

exceptions).



FCEC 21

Issues relating to the extent to which instructions for use including words such as “exercise”

and “sport” could be used on the labelling of FISP products.

The limited degree of adaption of authorised health claims to the FISP products.

The absence of provisions to guarantee the composition of products sold as FISP meet the

needs of sportspeople.

The absence of a list of banned doping substances.

The absence of nutrient profiles and related conditions in order to avoid certain FISP products

which are high in substances such as sugar from targeting the general population.

Nonetheless, certain interviewees agreed that, with modifications to address the points above,

other horizontal rules of food law may be suitable for the regulation of FISP. That said, one

stakeholder in particular felt that specific legislation was preferable given the long process

which they expected amendments to the varying pieces of existing legislation to require.

On balance, the introduction of national legislation, if suitably designed, was considered to

enhance legal clarity for FISP and was not expected to increase burdens for competent

authorities or operators.

1.2.8 B11 Competent Authority

Controls are currently performed by departmental authorities as part of the wider food

controls, the focus of which is determined at a national level. They cover places of

manufacture and points of sale with the corresponding French department. Points of sale and

places of manufacture which are based outside France cannot be controlled.

Controls of sportsfood products have not strictly adhered to the 1977 order in recent years

given the degree of flexibility provided in terms of composition (see 1.1.1). Controls at

present focus on the application of claims and general labelling legislation (e.g. misleading

statements). While controls can prioritise specific areas (and it is possible that e.g. health

claims will be a priority in next year's controls), in general terms the specialist nature of the

FISP market means that it is difficult to consider it a high-priority market for checks.

Furthermore, the high number of product lines makes it a difficult market to controls difficult

for the authorities.

One interviewee commented that controls tend to focus on physical outlets with larger sales

volumes, rather than smaller gyms and fitness suites; though the interviewee appreciated that

controls of these outlets are not easy both due to the number of such outlets and their nature.

This was confirmed to an extent by control bodies who have noticed an increasing hostility

from some controlled specialist sports nutrition shops and gyms where the seller is often also

a consumer of some of the FISP products for sale.

It was felt that the introduction of new national legislation for sportsfood after 2016 would be

positive for the competent authorities and control bodies as there would be a clear legal

framework for dealing with products. The method of determining areas to control and the

controls themselves would not change; there would just be more legal clarity for the

completion of market controls.



FCEC 23

2 CASE STUDY: GERMANY

2.1 Theme 1: current market for sportsfood

2.1.1 A13 National rules

2.1.1.1 National legislation

There is no specific national legislation on sportsfood in Germany.

Directive 2009/39/EC is transposed in Germany through the Diaetverordnung (DiaetV). The

DiaetV follows fairly closely the provisions set out in Directive 2009/39/EC. Food for

intensive muscular effort is recognised as a type of dietetic food in the annexe to the DiaetV.

Some other national legislation with potential impacts for some FISP products was identified:

There is a notification procedure for food supplements in Germany.

There is national legislation on beverages containing caffeine (including energy drinks, which

are not considered FISP).

There has been an appraisal of the definition and composition of sportsfood in Germany. This

appraisal can be considered a form of non-legislatively binding rule; however, no

interviewees made reference to this appraisal or its impacts during the course of the case

study.

2.1.1.2 Legislative methods of placing products on the market

Three methods of placing on the market were identified in Germany. These were:

dietetic food (sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC);

food supplement, or;

fortified foods or other foods for normal consumption .

The choice of the method of placing on the market is the operator's, as long as the product

complies with relevant legislation. In theory, it is possible to identify the method of placing

on the market from the product label; for example, products placed on the market as

sportsfood in accordance with Directive 2009/39/EC should bear an obligatory indication as

outlined in Article 19 of the DiaetV7. However, it was noted that some products mix

statements, and provide both indications for food supplements and for dietetic foods.

Certain (though not all) interviewees felt that there had been an increasing trend towards the

placing on the market of FISP as food supplements. This trend was observed to have started

in 2010 once it became clear that sportsfood may cease being a category of dietetic food in

the future. This trend was explained by the following:

7 This article is similar to Article 9 of Directive 2009/39/EC

Operators have tried to adjust to a future legislative situation where sportsfood may not be

considered a dietetic food, and consequently have been testing new methods of placing on the

market and the boundaries of these methods.

According to the provisions of Article 11 (1) (c) of Directive 2009/39/EC products placed on

the market as dietetic foods should theoretically have scientifically proven benefits (though

this is no requirement to systematically check this). Placing products on the market as food

supplements or foods for normal consumption can circumvent this issue.

The limited evidence available from interviewees suggests that about 50% of FISP products

in Germany are placed on the market as sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC, with

the remainder placed on the market as food supplements (~25%) or foods for general

consumption (~25%). It is important to note that these estimates are based on data provided

by just a handful of operators, and that the method of placing on the market is understood to

vary substantially from operator to operator.

It was noted by one interviewee that the placing on the market of fortified food products in

Germany is particularly difficult (see section 2.2.7).

2.1.1.3 Impact of national rules

As there are no specific rules on sportsfood in Germany, there is no impact to report.

However, interviewees did identify issues with the situation in Germany vis-a-vis that of

other Member States. More specifically:

Different Member States may have different interpretations of how products are positioned

legally. Consequently, a product which is accepted as a sportsfood according to Directive

2009/39/EC8 in Germany may not be accepted as such in some other Member States, and may

have to be placed on the market there as a food supplement instead. This can lead to labelling

issues (i.e. products may have to have different labels due to the potentially different

information on labels resulting from conflicting methods of placing on the market if a single

label were to be used). The extent to which different labelling is necessary depends on the

flexibility of the Member States involved with regards to this issue; Italy was cited as an

example of a Member State which may consider some German products placed on the market

as sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC to be food supplements, and would not

accept labelling on these products indicating them to be a dietetic sportsfood.

The above issue may also impact exports; some third countries may not accept products with

labeling (in different languages) which indicates the product is both to be a food supplement

in one EU Member State and a dietetic sportsfood in another EU Member State.

Differences in accepted composition or types of ingredients between Member States may

result in the need to change product composition for different national markets. With regards

to types of ingredients, creatine is an example; there are guidelines on the types of creatine

accepted in sportsfood in Italy (as well as laws in third country Switzerland).

8 i.e. in accordance with Directive 2009/39/EC



FCEC 25

It was also noted by interviewees that the absence of national legislation made the borderline

between sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC and some medicinal products, and

between sportsfood according to Directive 2009/39/EC and food supplements rather blurred.

This second point was at least partly demonstrated by the estimates for method of placing on

the market provided in section 2.1.1.2.

2.1.2 Sportsfood products on the market

2.1.2.1 A1 Products on the market

Number of products

No data on the number of FISP products on the German market were identified. There is no

notification for products placed on the market as sportsfoods according to Directive

2009/39/EC in Germany, and no interviewee felt able to provide a meaningful estimate as to

the total number of products on the German market. According to one interviewee, three of

the seven largest companies (which represent about 80% of the market by volume combine)

each have 100-120 products including different flavours and formats. If it is assumed each of

the seven largest companies have an average of 110 products, these 770 products represent

approximately 80% of the German market. However it was noted that there are a multitude of

smaller companies selling their products in significantly smaller volumes. According to the

pareto principle9, there would consequently be around 4,000 products on the German market.

Given that there are also many products for sale on the internet from operators based in other

Member States or third countries, and that the German market is the second largest in Europe,

it is possible that the number of products is higher than this.

While there is no meaningful way of estimating the number of products by category;

however, information on the importance of each category in terms of value based on

Euromonitor data is in Table 2.1 below. It should be noted that one interviewee believed the

growth rate of the overall FISP industry is a bit lower than the EU average at around 2%; the

weighted figure in Table 2.1 puts overall growth at 1.9%.

Table 2.1: Importance of main categories of FISP in Germany

Category 2014 Value EUR m % of total** Forecast annual

growth rate

2013-18

Protein products 107 24% 9.0%

Performance boosting

products

28.9 6% 8.5%

Sportsdrinks 316 70% -1.4%*

Total 451.9 1.9% (weighted;

9 The pareto principle states that 20% of invested input is responsible for 80% of the results obtained.

in sportsdrinks)

Source: Euromonitor

* 2014-2019 forecasts

**Figures add up to more than 10 0 due to rounding

Main sub-categories and formats

Comments, and to the extent possible, estimates of the main sub-categories under each

category are presented below. These are based on information provided by interviewees.

Sportsdrinks

The majority; probably 80% of products; are carbohydrate electrolyte solutions.

Low energy and moderated sodium drinks constitute the remainder.

Format may be ready-to-drink (RTD) or powder.

Protein based products

Approximately 50% of products in the category are protein only.

The remainder are protein mixed either with carbohydrates, BCAA, individual amino acids

such as l-carnatine or vitamins and minerals.

Formats include powder, RTD and solid foods (notably bars).

One interviewee noted a recent growth in products straddling the border between protein

products and slimming products (e.g. body-shaping plus protein products).

Performance boosting products

The majority of products in this category (60%+) are carbohydrates based products; either

liquids/gels or bars.

Creatine, BCAA and protein hydrosalates comprise approximately 20% of the category. Over

half of these products are single ingredient, though there are some ingredient combinations as

well. BCAA and combinations often come in powder format; the others in tablet/capsule or

pill form.

The remainder is made up of other, primarily single ingredient substances, based on the

following substances: l-carnitine, caffeine and magnesium. Tablets, capsules and pills are the

most common format. L-carnitine may be found in RTD form.

2.1.2.2 A2 Ingredients

Sportsdrinks

Carbohydrates and electrolytes (primarily sodium) are the main ingredients.

Protein



FCEC 27

For powders, protein generally makes up over 70% of the dry matter. For protein enriched

foods (i.e. bars and RTD), protein makes up at least 25% of the energy value of the product.

Combinations of different proteins may be used in order to have a better effect than a single

source of protein.

Protein with carbohydrates are used in order to boosts energy or help with strength.

As noted in section 2.1.2.1, other ingredients such as BCAA, individual amino acids such as

l-carnitine or vitamins and minerals may be combined with protein in some products.

Performance boosting products

For energy boosting products, carbohydrates constitute at least 65% of total product energy.

As noted in section 2.1.2.1, creatine, BCAA and protein hydrosalates, l-carnitine, caffeine and

magnesium are the other main ingredients in this category.

Creatine products contain creatine in volumes sufficient to ensure at least 0.08g of creatine

per 1kg of bodyweight.

2.1.2.3 A3 Price

No price data was identified at national level or provided by interviewees. However,

Euromonitor contains price data for certain major brands in Germany. Prices for products

considered representative of each category are provided in Table 1.2.

Table 2.2 Price of FISP products in Germany (2014, EUR)

Category Average size Average price Price per unit

Protein – powders 705g 23.79 EUR 3.37 EUR/100g

Performance

boosting – gels

220ml 4.93 EUR 0.56 EUR/ 25g

Sportsdrinks 1607ml 1.28 EUR 0.08 EUR / 100ml

Source: FCEC based on Euromonitor; average of 5 randomly selected

2.1.3 Operators

2.1.3.1 A6 Market structure

Value of FISP market

According to data from Euromonitor, the market for sports nutrition and sportsdrinks was

worth EUR 451.9m in 2014. No alternative data sources were identified during the course of

the case study. The industry estimates that the industry has grown at around 2% per year in

recent years. An increase in participation in sport was identified as a reason for industry

growth; most notably the higher level of participation in physically demanding sports such as

marathons (e.g. the number of people completing the Berlin marathon increased by 57% over

the period 2008-14). The continued growth in sporting activity and different product

positioning for different target groups appear to be the main opportunities for the FISP

market. Interviewees identified unfair competition from products not complying with

legislation (both of EU and third country origin), and the doping issues as the major industry

threats.

Structure of the chain and characteristics of operators

While a handful of large operators dominate the market, interviewees reported that there is a

large (and growing number) of smaller companies which fall under the category of SMEs

active in the market. The industry in Germany was therefore considered to be polarised, with

the a few large operators, many small operators and very little between the two.

According to one interviewee, companies may either specialise in FISP or be active in

neighbouring areas such as pharmaceutical products, slimming products or food supplements.

The reason for this latter case is synergies in terms of the techniques and processes used in

the industries. In some cases, the subsidiary may specialise in FISP, but the parent company

may be active in a wider range of food or functional food related areas.

The level of integration of operators was reported by interviewees to vary between

companies, with operators performing one or more of the manufacture, branding and sale

roles. However, on balance evidence from interviewees suggests there is a fairly high level of

integration; 41 of the significant 57 operators identified by one interviewee were active in

more than one part of the chain; primarily both production and sale. Sub-contracted

manufacture was identified as primarily being used in the case of private label FISP products.

Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 show the latest available concentration ratios for sports nutrition and

sportsdrinks operators respectively. While the sports nutrition industry shows a high level of

concentration, the sportsdrinks industry is less concentrated. There is also a high presence of

private label operators10

in the sportsdrinks industry (they represent an estimated 38% of the

total market for sportsdrinks).

Table 2.3: Concentration ratio of branded sports nutrition operators in Germany (2014)

Concentration ratio Combined market share

2014


2010

CR-4 57.9% 62.6%

CR-8 78.1% 85%


Table 2.4: Concentration ratio of sportsdrinks operators in Germany (2014)

Concentration ratio Combined market share

2014


2009

CR-4 42.2% 41.8%

CR-4 + other private label 63.2% 63.0%

10 Retail operators selling products under their brand that have been produced by subcontracted manufacturers.



FCEC 29


2.1.3.2 A10 Innovation

Interviewees believed that annual innovation represented between 5-8% of the German

market for FISP. Innovation in Germany was considered not just to be the development of

new products, but also changes and improvements to existing products. The dynamic target

group of customers expects innovation. The different needs of different athletes were also

considered to drive innovation, and also to have contributed to increasing difficulty in terms

of categorisation of products for sportspeople.

Two operators interviewed during the course of the study reported that the development time

for new products is typically 1-2 years. The precise time needed depends on the complexity

of the product. In the case of significant technical or regulatory challenges (e.g. the inclusion

of caffeine in the latter case), the development period can exceed 2 years.

2.1.3.3 A8 Trade

No quantitative data on trade in FISP was identified during the course of the case study.

The following markets were reported as significant export markets by interviewees:

Switzerland (which has a specific law on sportsfood; this is in the process of being updated)

Russia (prior to sanctions)

Turkey

Norway (requires certification that a product imported from Germany is on the German

market an in compliance with the law)

Australia (interest in EU products due to the absence of use of genetically modified

ingredients; there is national legislation on sportsfood in Australia)

Middle East (a small but growing export market)

The extent to which German based operators export varies between operators. One major

operator reported exporting 60% of its German production. However, interviewees did not

consider this level of export to be representative of German FISP operators as a whole. Most

large operators are understood not to export to such a high level; and one interviewee noted

that many smaller operators may only sell products at a local level (not even at a national

level) and subsequently will not export at all.

In terms of imports, the primary source third country identified was the US. Two forms of

import were identified:

1. Import through local partners based in the EU who act as subsequent distributors.

2. Direct to consumer imports through US based companies selling products over the internet.

While no substantial concerns were expressed about the first form of import, interviewees

considered the second form to be dubious. It was felt that many products imported this way

were not in compliance with EU or German law.

Food supplements as a whole were reported to be generally imported from China; some

sports supplements may be among these imports.

2.1.4 Consumers, distribution and marketing

2.1.4.1 A7 Distribution channels

Information on the distribution of FISP identified during the course of the case study is

presented in Table 1.7. In the context of drug stores, sports shops and supermarkets, it was

noted by interviewees that private label products are becoming increasingly common.

Table 2.5: Main distribution channels in Germany

Channel Comments Importance

Internet Fast growing channel; both specialist

(i.e. dedicated sports nutrition shops)

and general (e.g. Amazon). Operators

may be based in DE, other EU MS or

third countries.

Interviewees: top four

channel, ~ 20% by value

(market share possibly as

high as 50% for protein

and performance

categories)


“Drogerie” (drug

stores chains)

Stores selling health, beauty and

pharmaceutical products. Examples:

DM, Rossman. Smaller producers do

not use this channel (they cannot

meet demand). Drug stores sell on

line as well.


channel, ~25% by value

CS: see text

Sports/ fitness clubs

and gyms

Includes a new emerging channel of

self service machines (see below)


channel, ~30% by value


Sports shops Examples: Sportscheck, Intersport Interviewees: top four

channel ~25% by value


Supermarket Smaller producers do not use this

channel (they cannot meet demand).

Supermarkets are selling some

products on line.

Interviewees: not yet

mainstream


Chemists May be popular with smaller

companies.

Interviewees:

considered to account for

a very low proportion of

distribution


Special events Examples: pre-marathon fairs. Both

sampling and purchase may occur.

Popular with smaller companies.

Interviewees: no

information

Source: FCEC based on interviewees and consumer survey (CS)



FCEC 31

The table displays a difference between the importance of certain distribution channels

(notably supermarkets) by volume according to interviewees, and the number of consumers

reporting the use of distribution channels in the consumer survey. These differences can be

largely explained by the following:

The consumer survey did not include the Germany-specific channel of “Drogerie” (drug store

chains), which are generally not found in other Member States. These drug stores chains

bridge the categories of pharmacy and supermarket as a wide range of food and hygiene

products can be found in them. In the absence of drug stores from the survey, it is considered

likely that a significant proportion of consumers purchasing FISP in drug stores chains

indicated supermarkets.

Consumer survey figures are based on the number of consumers, while industry figures are

based on the importance of volume.

The full results of the consumer survey distribution channel findings for Germany are

displayed in Figure 2-1. The importance of supermarkets for distribution of sportsdrinks, and

of the online channel for performance boosting products are worth noting.

Figure 2-1: distribution channels in Germany by product type according to consumer

survey


As noted in Table 1.7 above, an emerging method of selling sports nutrition products in

German fitness clubs and gyms is that of self service machines (see Figure 2-2). According to

one interviewee, these machines have been around for approximately two years. It was noted

that there is a potential danger for the consumer from these machines as consumers can

effectively mix their own drinks (including choosing higher levels of concentration) and the

resulting drink is served in a cup. The product consequently does not appear to be in

compliance with the definition of a pre-packaged foodstuff outlined in article 1 of Directive

2000/13/EC. One interviewee believed that products from these machines are placed on the

42%53% 47%

28%35%

13%

14%12%

21% 6%

14%

9%17%

17%

15%

6%4% 5%

4%12%

13%14% 8%

18%12%

9%4%

6% 8%16%

4% 5% 3% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total products Sport Drinks Sport energy bars Protein-basedproducts

Performanceboostingproducts

Germany

Other

Online

Fitness Club/Gym

Pharmacies/Chemists

Specialised shops

Sports "Supermarkets"

Supermarket

market as sportsfoods according to Directive 2009/39/EC (although this Directive only

applies to pre-packed food).

Figure 2-2: Sports nutrition vending machine

Source: http://www.astepahead.nl/ accessed 1/5/2015, based on information provided by interviewees

2.1.4.2 A11 Marketing techniques

According to interviewees, the following marketing techniques for marketing FISP are used

in Germany:

Exclusivity agreements with certain sports clubs (i.e. only a certain product can be used in the

club).

Sponsoring of sports clubs or teams.

Endorsement by athletes.



FCEC 33

Specialist press advertising.

"Nutritional schooling", whereby a representative of a company explains nutritional needs and

how products can fit with this.

Word-of-mouth advertising.

Internet communication (including the use of internet forums).

The last two methods of communication on FISP products were considered by interviewees

to be problematic for competent authorities to control. In the context of claims legislation and

controls by competent authorities, these methods of communication fall into a grey area.

There is generally no record of word of mouth advertising. The control of information on the

internet is already challenging (see section 2.2.8), and information exchanged on internet

forums either may not originate from the operator in question, or may not be traceable to

them.

Recently there has been some TV advertising of FISP products, but this is understood not yet

to be a significant form of advertising.

One interviewee noted that serious sportspeople will often rely on advice from trainers and

nutritionists, meaning that the product labels are not as important for them.

2.1.4.3 A5 Claims

According to interviewees, authorised health claims which are relevant for sportspeople are

widely used on FISP products in Germany. In addition to the seven authorised claims of

direct relevance to FISP, it was noted that the claim on magnesium in relation to muscle

function is commonly used.

There were mixed views on communication of substances without authorised health claims at

present in Germany. One stakeholder believed that, if the product is placed on the market as a

dietetic food, there may b

study on food intended for sportspeople · agra ceas consulting john nganga dr dylan bradley dr...

Documents